Appellate tribunals exercising discretion regarding statutory pre-deposit waivers must issue reasoned orders applying the triple-test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Failure to evaluate both the underlying merits and the appellant's actual financial condition renders the rejection of such waivers legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the order dated 24^th January, 2025 (Annexure-8) passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in case No. EPFA No. 29/2024, wherein, the application filed by Petitioner for waiver of pre- deposit under Section 7 -O of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter refers to as ‘EPF Act of 1952’for short) has been disposed of by directing the Petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount ordered under Section 7 -A of EPF Act of 1952, without even considering the principles of grant of stay i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss injury.

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that Appeal filed by Petitioner under Section 7 -I of EPF Act of 1952 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, Case No. 29/2024 is liable to be heard on its own merit without any requirement of pre-deposit in terms of Section 7 -O of EPF Act of 1952, especially because the order passed under Section 7 -A, on the face of the record, is not sustainable in the eye of law and Petitioner has a good prima facie case, in its favour and even balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioner and, further, Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury if stay of waiver of pre-deposit is not granted in favour of the Petitioner.

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The admitted facts of the case are that the Petitioner is engaged in the business of real-estate and is registered under Provisions of Employees Provident Fund Organization under Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952. For the purpose of carrying out its business, Petitioner is having its regular employees and it also engages contractors for labour related works for which Petitioner pays the contractor ‘labour charges’ after deduction of TDS in terms of Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. The dispute pertains to the period April 2016 to March 2020 and it is an admitted fact that during the said period Petitioner discharged the liability of Provident Fund of its employees to the tune of Rs.2,19,87,381/-. However, the Provident Fund dues of the Petitioner in respect of its regular employees was determined at Rs.2,21,98,062.26/- and meager deferential amount of Rs. 2,10,681/- was determined due to some error in computation of the Petitioner. The said amount is not in dispute.

5. However, for the said period April 2016 to March 2020, Area Enforcement Officer alleged non-compliance against Petitioner towards discharge of Provident Fund dues in respect of labour charges which were paid to the contractor. It was the case of the Enforcement Officer that Petitioner employed contractors and paid them labour charges and claimed deduction of the said amount as expenses in its Profit & Loss Account but had not discharged the liability of Provident Fund in respect of the same.

6. Per contra, it was the Petitioner’s case that all payments made to contractors were through banking channels and contractors were duly registered under the Provis